Event Details

This document is page 834 from a Federal Supplement (349 F. Supp. 2d) concerning 9/11-related litigation (Ashton and Burnett complaints). It details the court's decision to grant Saudi American Bank's motion to dismiss claims that it provided material support to al Qaeda. It also introduces allegations against Arab Bank regarding its financial support for terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas, and its alleged role in facilitating the September 11 attacks. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.

This document is page 826 from the 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It appears to be part of a judicial opinion in the case 'Burnett I' (likely Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp.), concerning liability for the September 11 attacks. The text discusses legal standards for 'proximate cause,' 'concerted action liability' (conspiracy/aiding and abetting) under New York law, the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and civil RICO claims. It analyzes whether providing material support to al Qaeda creates liability for the 9/11 attacks. While the Bates stamp indicates it was produced to the House Oversight Committee, there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.

This document is a page from a Federal Supplement (legal opinion) regarding civil litigation stemming from the September 11 attacks. It discusses motions to dismiss filed by Saudi defendants, specifically Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, as well as the National Commercial Bank, in cases alleging they provided material support to al Qaeda. The text details procedural history involving the transfer of cases between the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York, and mentions a $4.5 billion claim by insurance companies.

This document is page 40 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) from April 29, 2022, likely rejecting a motion by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defense's failure to prove that missing evidence (financial records, phone records, and pre-9/11 flight manifests) prejudiced the case. The court notes that the defense's claim that these missing records would show an absence of incriminating connections (payments, calls to victims) is purely speculative.